Great British Railways announcement causes Trainline shares to tumble

[MotCO]

Provide them, or anyone else, with a monopoly and we can expect standards to fall.

I think this is the key point. Without competition, where is the incentive to provide good customer care? Witness the plethora of energy companies - I have just signed up with a new supplier and have already been impressed by their customer service, whereas others have a poor reputation. Guess which one I am likely to recommend?

 

[Trackman]

Believe they (Seatfrog) are wanting to raise funds by crowdfunding / crowdcube (or some such).

Thanks, saved me clicking!

I doubt a state-owned firm will develop a website and app. They're clearly in with a chance if they bid for it. Also I can't see the API going away, so Trainline, Trainsplit etc will I'm sure continue.

The lost business wil be selling the same thing with a bit of branding to multiple TOCs.

From 2023, a new platform/website/app, testing, rollout, public awareness etc.. no chance.
You could do an 'Avanti' and buy something off the shelf, but we know what happened there and it wouldn't look at all good.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Thanks, saved me clicking!

From 2023, a new platform/website/app, testing, rollout, public awareness etc.. no chance.
You could do an 'Avanti' and buy something off the shelf, but we know what happened there and it wouldn't look at all good.

They've already apparently done this themselves at LNER, which is government owned.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Good. terrible company.

Do you mean simply because they charge a fee? There's a lot more to the company than that. See beyond that and they are actually a very good company.

Presumably their deceptive advertising would have to end. That gives the impression their website offers cut price tickets whereas what it offers are Advance tickets limited to one train, which are available elsewhere anyway at a commission free price.

Unless made illegal, it should remain possible to offer split tickets if A to C is priced greater than the sum of A to B and B to C.

Their advertising was deemed perfectly lawful.
With fare simplification it should mean through fares are cheaper than splits. Splits only started getting cheaper because different operators price different journeys. With one company setting all fares, in theory, it should mean no need for splits.

 

[ChrisC]

With fare simplification it should mean through fares are cheaper than splits. Splits only started getting cheaper because different operators price different journeys. With one company setting all fares, in theory, it should mean no need for splits.

Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I was wondering what future there might be for the split ticketing booking sites like TrainSplit. If fares simplification did mean that there was no longer any need for splits they wouldn’t be needed. However, the current fares structure throughout the network means that it would be an enormous job to remove all situations where it is cheaper to split tickets and loopholes would continue to remain. If there is only going to be one national system for buying tickets then organisations like TrainSplit will go along with the Trainline and individual TOCs selling tickets.

 

[Hadders]

My view is that 3rd party sites like Trainline and Trainsplit have bought innovation to the market which we are highly unlikely to see with a monopoly provider.

 

[Wallsendmag]

They've already apparently done this themselves at LNER, which is government owned.

I can assure you the LNER website is not off the shelf.

 

[py_megapixel]

My view is that 3rd party sites like Trainline and Trainsplit have bought innovation to the market which we are highly unlikely to see with a monopoly provider.

Trainsplit, absolutely - Trainline, what innovation have they brought, exactly, other than charging people more money than a TOC website while advertising that they're cheaper?

 

[Hadders]

Trainsplit, absolutely - Trainline, what innovation have they brought, exactly, other than charging people more money than a TOC website while advertising that they're cheaper?

I'm no fan of Trainline for their charges etc but they were transformational when it came to purchasing tickets via the phone and then online. Initially there were no charges, they came later.

Without Trainline there wouldn't be anywhere near the volume of tickets purchased online.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I can assure you the LNER website is not off the shelf.

Excellent! So is that also confirmation that, in theory, the government already has it's own booking system, that could potentially be expanded across the GB Railway network?

 

[ABB125]

Their advertising was deemed perfectly lawful.
With fare simplification it should mean through fares are cheaper than splits. Splits only started getting cheaper because different operators price different journeys. With one company setting all fares, in theory, it should mean no need for splits.

Problem is, if all fares are set by the same organisation, will the "Cross Country approach" be taken? Ie: blanket 0930 off peak time, ridiculous prices etc.

My view is that 3rd party sites like Trainline and Trainsplit have bought innovation to the market which we are highly unlikely to see with a monopoly provider.

Very much so; I particularly like TrainSplit's multiple via points!

 

[Hadders]

Excellent! So is that also confirmation that, in theory, the government already has it's own booking system, that could potentially be expanded across the GB Railway network?

That's fine for today but there won't be any incentive to develop it further or to introduce new features.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can assure you the LNER website is not off the shelf.

Didn't it originate in Virgin/Stagecoach VTEC days?
It's also geared to LNER's business which is a long-distance network.
I don't know any of the IT ownership details, but DfT will likely own the Northern web site too (Trainline-backed I believe).
They also will own the diabolical NRE site which comes close to selling tickets but not quite - you are currently referred to one of the TOCs.
Underneath it all will be the ATOC/RDG databases and apps which feed all the ticketing search engines anyway.

On top of that the fares and ticketing systems will likely be radically overhauled and "simplified", with new fulfilment options.
That will all need new development and it would be crazy to do it multiple times on various TOC platforms which might not exist in a couple of years.
Plenty of issues for the new GBR management to get on with...

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

That's fine for today but there won't be any incentive to develop it further or to introduce new features.

On what basis do you reach that conclusion? If the DfT / GBR now carries the revenue risk, it's in their interests for them to make a good go of the marketing and sales elements of rail, more than ever.

The incentive is attracting new people to rail, poaching from other modes and converting more people to modern ticketing methods, which seem to reduce costs elsewhere.

 

[Hadders]

Problem is, if all fares are set by the same organisation, will the "Cross Country approach" be taken? Ie: blanket 0930 off peak time, ridiculous prices etc.

I suspect so. There are many complications in the current fares structure but we need to be very aware of good value fares being removed. It would not surprise me if we see the removal of things like LNR/WMT only fares on the WCML, Weekend Super Off Peak fares in GTR land, Northern Only fares etc etc.

We also need to be very alert to the removal of fares regulation which, while far from perfect, has at least kept a lid on fares. For example, LNER would love to charge more for leisure passengers to travel between Newcastle and London on Sunday afternoons but they can't thanks to fares regulation. Government think that fares regulation is an outdated 1990s concept but the alternative will probably be far worse.

On what basis do you reach that conclusion? If the DfT / GBR now carries the revenue risk, it's in their interests for them to make a good go of the marketing and sales elements of rail, more than ever.

The incentive is attracting new people to rail, poaching from other modes and converting more people to modern ticketing methods, which seem to reduce costs elsewhere.

Just look at something like the telephone network when it was Government owned. 6 months to get a line installed, you could only rent a handset, appalling choice of styles and colours.

Translate this to the Government owned railway and every time someone wants to upgrade a website it'll end up going through endless committees, funding hurdles, then the unions will want their say. Whenever Government gets involved it's like turning a super tanker when in reality a speed boat is needed.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I suspect so. There are many complications in the current fares structure but we need to be very aware of good value fares being removed. It would not surprise me if we see the removal of things like LNR/WMT only fares on the WCML, Weekend Super Off Peak fares in GTR land, Northern Only fares etc etc.

We also need to be very alert to the removal of fares regulation which, while far from perfect, has at least kept a lid on fares. For example, LNER would love to charge more for leisure passengers to travel between Newcastle and London on Sunday afternoons but they can't thanks to fares regulation. Government think that fares regulation is an outdated 1990s concept but the alternative will probably be far worse.

It already seemed obvious to me that those operator specific fares were going under these reforms. I suspect it will all be handled via Advance fares, which clearly define your specific service, and thus makes it clear what train you can get.

35. Fares will be simplifed.
Confusing fares undermine trust and damage passengers’
confdence that they are getting the right fare. Great British
Railways will use its leadership role to simplify the current mass
of complicated fares and tickets, ending the uncertainty and
confusion about whether passengers are using the right train
company. It will set most fares under a clear framework agreed
with Ministers.

 

[Wolfie]

It already seemed obvious to me that those operator specific fares were going under these reforms.

If they remove WMT/LNWR and Chiltern fares between London and Birmingham the railway will lose vast swathes of passengers completely. The fares set by Avanti, except for increasingly scarce Advance tickets, are far from cheap.
If less people are using the railway at all they will increasingly ask why their taxes should subsidise it.

 

[Hadders]

It already seemed obvious to be that those operator specific fares were going under these reforms.

I rest my case. Goodbye to good value fares.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Anyway, Trainline has fallen further on the market opening this morning. Down almost 3pc already.

 

[AlterEgo]

Splits only started getting cheaper because different operators price different journeys. With one company setting all fares, in theory, it should mean no need for splits.

That’s really not how it works. Split ticketing will always be a thing thanks to the railway’s unique geography. It’s not solely down to “different operators pricing different tickets”.

 

[Deafdoggie]

That’s really not how it works. Split ticketing will always be a thing thanks to the railway’s unique geography. It’s not solely down to “different operators pricing different tickets”.

I was over-simplyfying it. But back in the days of BR, whilst there were some journeys that were cheaper split, these were generally where there was a choice of routes, and a rare occurrence. Nowadays there are lots of routes where it's cheaper to split, because different companies set different legs of long journeys. I'm not saying split fares will go, but the point and aim of the new structure is for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing, whereas at the moment the left hand doesn't even know there is a right hand. It may, of course, not work.

 

[Wolfie]

I was over-simplyfying it. But back in the days of BR, whilst there were some journeys that were cheaper split, these were generally where there was a choice of routes, and a rare occurrence. Nowadays there are lots of routes where it's cheaper to split, because different companies set different legs of long journeys. I'm not saying split fares will go, but the point and aim of the new structure is for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing, whereas at the moment the left hand doesn't even know there is a right hand. It may, of course, not work.

Back in BR days very few people were aware of ticket splitting. That genie is well and truly out of the bottle and won't go back in. Additionally there were no computerised tools to identify/optimise ticket splits in BR days.

 

[35B]

On what basis do you reach that conclusion? If the DfT / GBR now carries the revenue risk, it's in their interests for them to make a good go of the marketing and sales elements of rail, more than ever.

The incentive is attracting new people to rail, poaching from other modes and converting more people to modern ticketing methods, which seem to reduce costs elsewhere.

And HMG have considerable form in running their wholly owned businesses as cash cows, depriving them of investment for short term cash savings rather than allowing their management to invest in them as proper businesses. That is evidenced over decades, including the railways right now.

 

[Haywain]

That's fine for today but there won't be any incentive to develop it further or to introduce new features.

Well, that's a daft comment. We've been constantly improving the website and booking engine and this continues to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My view is that 3rd party sites like Trainline and Trainsplit have bought innovation to the market which we are highly unlikely to see with a monopoly provider.

Though I'd still say that HAFAS (Hacon-FahrplanAuskunftsSystem, the one used by DB) is the best journey planner out there, and it was developed on behalf of a nationalised operator. I'd say DB has done plenty of innovation in recent years.

The thing is that I'd like to get away from the idea that it is a monopoly. There isn't a "rail travel market", despite the way the industry likes to think there is (there isn't a "bus travel market" either). There is a "travel market", and it includes the car, aircraft and coaches/buses (and bikes and walking locally, though you shouldn't really compete against those as for a number of reasons they should be the default if they are possible), and the railway is by far (other than for London commuting) the smallest player. If you think of it that way, it should have plenty of motivation. And the quality of the ticket purchase experience is just part of the choice. (One reason I like to use easyJet for flights is that their website is supremely easy to use, particularly so for block bookings of flights).

I must admit I think a "BR plc" would have done quite well.

 

[westv]

Well, that's a daft comment. We've been constantly improving the website and booking engine and this continues to happen.

Personally, I preferred the old layout you had when selecting tickets (the same one still used by Hull Trains).

 

[Wallsendmag]

Personally, I preferred the old layout you had when selecting tickets (the same one still used by Hull Trains).

It's the age old argument of do you stay with the current offering because it does exactly what you want it to do today very well but is stretched in doing so. Or do you move to a new platform that has the ability to expand and take on new functionality ?

 

[takno]

Back in BR days very few people were aware of ticket splitting. That genie is well and truly out of the bottle and won't go back in. Additionally there were no computerised tools to identify/optimise ticket splits in BR days.

BR had a lot of the same splits as now. Basically always split at Derby to avoid a cross-country-priced fare. The main difference is that ticket offices didn't operate under the same rules as they do post-privatisation, and if anybody tried to buy those splits the ticket office clerks were told to refuse them. Given the lack of online sales it was pretty much game-over at that point.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why people think the trainline branded business would disappear. There were third-party sales under BR, on much the same terms as now, and I'd expect them to continue, much as airlines are happy to sell through Expedia. What I took the announcement to mean was that the various TOC-branded sites will disappear, and the National Rail website (or whatever replaces it) will just sell you the tickets directly.

Obviously that would affect the Trainline because they power some of the sites and probably won't power the single new site. I've never found them to be a particularly savoury company, with misleading ads, annoying added charges, but there are definitely companies I like less.

 

[Wallsendmag]

BR had a lot of the same splits as now. Basically always split at Derby to avoid a cross-country-priced fare. The main difference is that ticket offices didn't operate under the same rules as they do post-privatisation, and if anybody tried to buy those splits the ticket office clerks were told to refuse them. Given the lack of online sales it was pretty much game-over at that point.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why people think the trainline branded business would disappear. There were third-party sales under BR, on much the same terms as now, and I'd expect them to continue, much as airlines are happy to sell through Expedia. What I took the announcement to mean was that the various TOC-branded sites will disappear, and the National Rail website (or whatever replaces it) will just sell you the tickets directly.

Obviously that would affect the Trainline because they power some of the sites and probably won't power the single new site. I've never found them to be a particularly savoury company, with misleading ads, annoying added charges, but there are definitely companies I like less.

I think the problem is that your average man in the street thinks Trainline is the official National Rail website. If suddenly there is one website that obviously is the one and only where does that leave trainline?

 

[Starmill]

I was over-simplyfying it. But back in the days of BR, whilst there were some journeys that were cheaper split, these were generally where there was a choice of routes, and a rare occurrence. Nowadays there are lots of routes where it's cheaper to split, because different companies set different legs of long journeys. I'm not saying split fares will go, but the point and aim of the new structure is for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing, whereas at the moment the left hand doesn't even know there is a right hand. It may, of course, not work.

I'm afraid as much as this is appealing it's not true. For example a single from Stranraer to Dundee is £71.20, yet a single from Stranraer to Glasgow is £14.60, and a single from Glasgow to Dundee is £25. You've no choice but to change trains in Glasgow really either, and even if there were some attempt to "ban" splitting it would be functionally impossible in that case. The saving is absolutely enormous too, £31.60 or 44.4%! This can't be blamed on multiple companies.